Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2013, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 07:18 PM by cjs.)
RE: Attack a Theist
1. It would be creepy and totalitarian if society is interested in such personal matters, and last time I checked, this country is not totalitarian. Enforcement would be a huge issue as well! I think the Puritans gave that the old college try early on. You have a law degree, so you know how this would play out in courts .

2. Good luck with it, again with enforcement. The govt has spent bookooo bucks on abstinence education to no avail. How do you know the positives of waiting til, say, age 35, outweighs the negatives of not waiting? How do you know that mass sexual repression wouldn't have adverse consequences?

3. I agree, it doesn't work, is unrealistic etc. The if-we-believed argument is moot because I don't believe and have no wish to follow these strictures. Interestingly I know many conservative Christians who don't want big brother watching their sex lives either, and yes, some are outside marriage, like dating.

We have different approaches to this deal. You are younger and think in terms of ideals. In contrast, I'm older and tend to think of real-world issues such as, if what you believed were actual policy, we would get into curtailing personal freedoms that we as a society do not wish to. Even though some states still have formication laws on the books, they don't enforce them. Why? Most of the population, even the pillars of the community, would do time for it at some point.

Interesting discussion.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjs's post
21-05-2013, 07:30 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 05:48 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Dom,

No formal debate, agreed. Yes, I disagree with my church often. I would not classify myself as Armenian or Calvinism but somewhere in-between.

In response to your questions...

1. Yes, certainly.
2. Yes!
3. Married people should have as much sex as they desire, even if another kid is undesirable. I have no problem with the use of contraception. This is acceptable because there is no negative social cost to marital sex between consenting, faithful and married men and women. Even when contraception is used, a social positive occurs due to the strengthening of the family bond created by sexual intimacy. Thus, the positives outweigh the negative. I believe this position may lead to an inherent logical contradiction regarding gay marriage and adoption. We can explore that if you would like.

I am enjoying our discussion!

Bucky Ball,

Thank you for your reply! I hope to have further conversations in the future.

Sincerely,

Mojch

Ok, so then another aside: I would love to watch a debate between you and Kingschosen. Granted, I think KC's religion is as nutty as they come, but I find him to be a much more grounded person than most Christians I have met. It seems to me you have a lot in common, because you are both critical thinkers (within the limitations of your religion) it would be very interesting to see the two of you discuss things, without interference from us heathens, but visible to us.

Also, you know nothing about me - I am an older woman, twice widowed. Most newbies here think I am male.

Ok, back to the topic.

1.So then, do we agree that some males have an excess of female hormones, and some females have an excess of male hormones?

2. And do we agree that the sexual energy of youth is just that - energy that is driven in a certain direction based on the physical impact great amounts of hormones have?

3. Yes it does lead to that contradiction. Even without the addition of adoption, I think all humans deserve to be allowed to live with a loving, caring partner, don't you?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
21-05-2013, 07:55 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 09:36 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 06:38 PM)Mojch Wrote:  CJS,

Could I ask you to articulate the argument you just made in a logical format? As I evaluate it, your points are...

1. "my sex life is no one's business but mine and my partner's": What logical argument do you have to support this? I offer the following counter-argument. (1) Sex has social consequences, whether emotional or physical. (2) Social consequences impact others. (3) Others have a right to care about what impacts them. (4) Thus, others have an interest (however limited) in your sex life. I would think this logic unassailable. Many of our sex crimes are specifically premised on the idea that certain sexual activity has such drastic social consequences that we do not make it a private matter. The more appropriate perspective is not "my sex life is no one's business but my own" but "my sex life is no one's business but my own up to a point". I propose that we disagree on where that point is, not on its existence as your original post suggests.

First of all how are you holding up?
I would take morondog's suggestion to thicken your skin and allow some of the perceived animosity roll off you like water off a simonized duck's back. Wink

Now, concerning your response above to CJS, I am going to assume that CJS is talking about sex between consenting adults so let's leave out the sex crime scenario for now (CJS let me know if this assumption is incorrect).

I think that the sex act is no one's business but that of the consenting adults participating in it. Where it becomes the interest of the society is if this act results in procreation and the offspring becomes a ward of the State/court, either by abandonment or by entering the welfare system (i.e. the "family" falls below the poverty line or the child is placed in foster care). The socio-economic impact of adults having children that they cannot financially support does, indeed, affect the society.

So what type of sex guarantees this never to happen? Homosexual sex, which is frowned upon, to put it mildly, by the adherents of religious dogma.

And what precautions could be taken by heterosexual partners so as not to result in pregnancy and thereby possibly placing an unwanted burden on society? Condoms, IUD's or EC's which, again, are frowned upon by many of the major Christian religions, most notably the Roman Catholic religion.

For the moment I won't address abortion.

So when I or CJS or whomever engages in consensual adult sex with or without the intention of reproducing who is to give it a stamp of approval?

The religious and their scripture? Hardly a source of exemplar comport when scripture allows for incest, polygamy, sex without consent and females to be bought and sold as chattel (passages upon request).

The State? Here in the US the Constitution guarantees us the following: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Even though I object to the word Creator the spirit of the phrase is unmistakable, my unalienable right to seek happiness in the privacy of my own home with another consenting adult is truly no one else's business EVEN THOUGH it may result in an unwanted pregnancy.

It would be a great act of humanity and kindness if the very organizations that so strenuously oppose contraception and sex education would throw themselves wholeheartedly in support of both. And as far as homosexual relationships are concerned these will never result in economic burdens to the State so why in the world are disinterested third parties meddling in what is of no concern of theirs?

My two cents worth, maybe three.

FC

*edit for clarity

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
21-05-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Yes I was talking about consenting adults and should have clarified that, thanks.

Dom and FC make interesting points about the cost to society argument. I'm 48 and have been sterilized (my decision in a free society), so I will bring no more children into the world. I earn a good living and pay my own way.

I don't wish to live in a country that polices people's sex lives. There are countries where they stone adulterers and/or fornicators. The anti-frowned-upon sex compliance rate may be better, but I don't know anyone who wants to live there, especially women. I do know people who used to live in some of those countries or a communist country such as China, and they are glad to be here.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 09:55 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 10:00 PM by amyb.)
RE: Attack a Theist
Quote:3. Married people should have as much sex as they desire, even if another kid is undesirable. I have no problem with the use of contraception. This is acceptable because there is no negative social cost to marital sex between consenting, faithful and married men and women. Even when contraception is used, a social positive occurs due to the strengthening of the family bond created by sexual intimacy. Thus, the positives outweigh the negative. I believe this position may lead to an inherent logical contradiction regarding gay marriage and adoption. We can explore that if you would like.
Yes. I am seeing a contradiction there. You think it's ok for heterosexual married couples to have recreational sex, but you think it's not ok for homosexual couples to have recreational sex. This makes no sense to me, and it makes me believe you just don't like gay people and/or do not want them to be happy, even when it's not hurting anyone.

Quote:1. The propagation of the human species is moral.

2. Disease negatively impacts the propagation of the human species.

3. That which negatively impacts a moral goal without offsetting positive impacts is harmful.

4. Homosexual intercourse increases the risk of sexual disease without a corresponding increase in the propagation of the human species.

5. Therefore, homosexuality is harmful.

6. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin.
1. Why is uncontrolled procreation "moral"? I'd say it is immoral to have children you can't take care of, or more children than you can handle.
2. Heterosexuals can have diseases, too.
3. I reject the idea that homosexuality has any negative impact. Also, I'd say tolerance of homosexuality has positive impacts, because otherwise you would causing unhappiness (not letting gays marry, have sex, etc.)
4. Are you one of those people who think all gay people have the HIV, or something? Also, I just want to let you know that homosexuals are able to have children. Being gay is not the same thing as being infertile. They can use surrogates, artificial insemination, etc. Polyamorous bisexuals in a homosexual relationship might even have heterosexual intercourse (I know we're talking about gays, but I think anyone in a homosexual relationship probably falls into your definition of "sin")...
5. I think the entire thing is based on a false premise, that procreation is moral. (And that recreational sex is bad when gays do it, but it's ok when heterosexuals do it. Even though there is no difference besides the parts involved.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like amyb's post
21-05-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojch,

I thought you wanted to sharpen your skills at debating the "god question". Why is your boxing ring fight over something as dull as biblical sexuality? Even if one of you convinces the other, it hardly strikes me as gainful.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
21-05-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(20-05-2013 02:38 PM)Mojch Wrote:  First, let me apologize to kingschosen for blatantly ripping off his thread title.

Second, I am a theist looking for an in-depth attack on my beliefs from an atheist willing to take the time to explain his arguments and respond to my counter-arguments. I am not interested in converting anyone. Instead, I seek to affirm the foundations of my own beliefs by testing them against arguments that have persuaded others.

Significantly, and perhaps unrealistically, I am not looking for a traditional "free for all" discussion wherein I address responses to lots of different people. Instead, I hope for a civil discourse with a single individual willing to do the following...

1. Explain why they are an atheist.
2. Read my responses to the argument(s) from #1 in detail and respond respectfully.
3. Correct any errors in my reasoning so that I can discard beliefs and/or arguments which are likely invalid.

A little about me to inform the discussion should anyone decide to take me up on my offer.

1. I am 30 years old.
2. Education wise, I have three degrees. (BA, M.Ed, JD) I have a working grasp of most scientific concepts but am not a scientist by training.
3. I have been a theist for my entire life as a result of my upbringing.
4. My current exposure to atheist argumentation has been limited to in-depth readings of The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

If the above sounds like it would be interesting to you, please respond and we can discuss. I will attempt to post replies at least once a day. Of course, should you raise a point that requires additional research or education on my part, it may take several days (or longer!) for me to do sufficient outside study to understand your position.

Sincerely,

Mojch

My experience going from a Christian who wanted to be a minister to an agnostic atheist who organizes discussion groups and participates in debates was most motivated by one single issue:

If there is a god, it has the ability to communicate with humans, and it wants us to be happy/worship it/follow its instructions, then why do people who sincerely and effortfully seek out answers from it not receive responses?

I spent a period of about a year trying to figure out what Christian doctrine made the most sense given what the bible presented. I was willing to believe and do anything, so long as it was clearly being communicated by god. I studied with multiple denominations, fasted and prayed for days, and ended up begging for answers - because I didn't want to spend a moment with the wrong idea about how I should live my life.

Not only did I not receive any answers about doctrinal issues - I didn't receive any answers about how - or if - I should have proceeded with my girlfriend at the time.

As I grew more desperate and angry, I blamed myself for being impatient, tried to console myself with the thought that my suffering and confusion might be a necessary part of a plan, and devoted myself to being especially careful until I had answers. For three months, I struggled.

And then, I finally threw up my hands and allowed myself to accuse god/argue against the existence of god. If I were a caretaker for a person and I wanted to see them do well - and I had answers about how they could do so and the ability to communicate them - I would do everything in my power to help that person along. If god couldn't or wouldn't do that for me - much less a whole world filled with believers in conflict with each other - then god was irrelevant. Or, god simply didn't exist.


So, I again ask the question: If there is a god, it has the ability to communicate with humans, and it wants us to be happy/worship it/follow its instructions, then why do people who sincerely and effortfully seek out answers from it not receive responses?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ReadAndConsider's post
22-05-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
From what I can tell after reading several posts in the boxing ring is that there is a disconnect between what Mojch was raised to believe and what is actually in the bible. I would say he has a cherry picked version, as most christians do. (and computer if you auto capitalize christian one more time, I swear.)

I would say that his beliefs are simply a learned behavior from his parents and other family members, friends & of course whatever preacher is talking on sunday about the cherry picked lesson of the day he wanted to talk about.

When shown what the bible actually says on the points he has tried to make using the bible as reference, time and time again I see the phrase "Please read your bible" As atheists we generally do better on religious Q&A's than most religious people because we DO read their religious texts and understand what is written in them.
If only we could get a few more of the c hristians (auto correct that beotch) to crack open a science book.

Mojch - your debate has really turned into you making unfounded assertions with no evidence to back any of those assertions up.
I know you didn't learn this in law school because in a court room, you would lose every case, if that were true.

"Your honor this man is guilty. He drove 5 miles to the victims house in a stolen car that was hot wired from a local shopping mall and it was there at scene of the crime he killed the man with a large 2 ton rock that he hurled in the air with the strength of the HULK. He should be locked away as soon as possible before his rage kills us all."

Judge "That's an incredible claim you have there. Is there any evidence you would like to submit"

Mojch "I give you this comic book that details the events I just described. The defendant, Bruce Banner, is a very dangerous man."

Judge "Yes the man on trial does share the same name as the fictional comic book character. Is that your entire argument ?"

Mojch "I believe it. The books says it right there. Just read the book"

Judge "Officer lock this man up before he hurts someone. No not the defendant, this character pretending to be a lawyer"

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
22-05-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(22-05-2013 03:19 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  "Your honor this man is guilty. He drove 5 miles to the victims house in a stolen car that was hot wired from a local shopping mall and it was there at scene of the crime he killed the man with a large 2 ton rock that he hurled in the air with the strength of the HULK. He should be locked away as soon as possible before his rage kills us all."

Judge "That's an incredible claim you have there. Is there any evidence you would like to submit"

Mojch "I give you this comic book that details the events I just described. The defendant, Bruce Banner, is a very dangerous man."

Judge "Yes the man on trial does share the same name as the fictional comic book character. Is that your entire argument ?"

Mojch "I believe it. The books says it right there. Just read the book"

Judge "Officer lock this man up before he hurts someone. No not the defendant, this character pretending to be a lawyer"




The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
22-05-2013, 05:30 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Rahn,

I do not cite evidence because Mark has not requested I do so. Evidence, unless necessary to back up a contested assertion, is a waste of time. In most US courts of law, trials begin with requests for admission where both sides discuss to determine what issues are actually contested. Evidence becomes relavent only to prove contested issues of fact. Could you cite a fact (not opinion or interpretation) claimed in my debate that you contest and I have not offered evidence for and for which such evidence was requested by Mark? A single example will do so I can respond briefly.

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: